The Gauhati High Court on Monday set aside the verdict and judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, directing the 23^st The Sashastra Seema Bal Battalion (SSB) will pay a compensation of Rs. 14,57,732/- to the plaintiff, on the grounds that it was not proved before the Tribunal that a vehicle belonging to 23^st The SSB battalion was involved in the accident in which the deceased lost his life.

The single bench of judges comprising Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia observed:

“…..It is true that motor accident compensation provisions are beneficial legislation. The law of evidence is not strictly applicable in such cases. But this does not mean that without any evidence, the claims should be allowed. It must first be determined which vehicle caused the accident, and then the owner of that vehicle will be required to pay compensation. A vehicle that is not involved in a motor vehicle accident cannot be subject to an obligation to pay compensation to the victim of a motor vehicle accident.”

According to the facts of the case, on November 19, 2009, at around 7 p.m., the deceased was riding his bicycle at Bagpuri Tiniali Chowk. It was alleged that a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) vehicle hit the deceased from behind, as a result of which he died on the spot.

A claim for compensation was filed by the deceased’s wife. The plaintiff stated in her evidence that an SSB vehicle caused the accident which resulted in the death of her husband. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang (Tribunal), she examined two other witnesses.

One of the witnesses stated in his evidence that he has a grocery store near the place of production. He also said that an SSB vehicle going towards Bhergaon at very high speed hit the bike of the deceased. He claimed to be an eye witness to the said event. On the other hand, another witness stated that he was in his home at the time and was informed by the first witness about the said accident.

After considering the evidence, the Tribunal allowed the prayer of the plaintiff and awarded a sum of Rs. 14,57,732/- as compensation.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence, the appellants filed this appeal with the High Court considering that no vehicle of 23^st The SSB battalion stationed at Bhairabkunda was involved in the said accident on 19 November 2009.

Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that all SSB vehicles have a particular color and this color is also used by some private vehicles. It was also argued that the place where the accident occurred is outside the 23 jurisdiction^st SSB Battalion and therefore no vehicle belonging to that Battalion is allowed to go outside the jurisdiction.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that since the death of the deceased in the accident is an admitted fact, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim because under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the plaintiff is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disability claimed was due to any wrongful act or negligence or fault of the owner of the vehicle concerned.

The Court held that in the written statement submitted by the appellants it was claimed that 23^st The SSB battalion has jurisdiction only from Bhairabkunda to Lalpool. It was also claimed that no vehicle belonging to this battalion goes to the place of production which is outside its jurisdiction.

“In this case, there is no evidence to support that an SSB vehicle belonging to the 23rd Battalion of the SSB was involved in the said accident in which the applicant’s husband lost his life. The evidence of the eyewitness Dejit Rabha is also shocking because in his cross-examination he stated that in the winter afternoon the light was low, but the faces of some people could be identified in this condition. He said that he identified the vehicle as an SSB vehicle after seeing its hood,” the Court observed.

It was further observed by the Court that it is not proved that a vehicle belonging to 23^st The SSB battalion was involved in the accident in which the deceased lost his life. Therefore, the Court held that 23^st The SSB Battalion cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

Thus, the Court annulled the contested judgment and sentence pronounced by the Tribunal.

Reference: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 80

Case Title: Union of India & 2 Ors. v. Smti. Ansumi Baro

No. file: Application MAC/521/2019

Click here to read/download the order